>
> As always, I find William's posts provocative and always deeply thought out. I am
> backtracking somewhat, as I am aware of 3-4 posts since, including the excellent
> contribution from Mark Melton. I hope to come to these presently, and meanwhile append a
> few comments here and there to this initial statement of William's.
>
> My purpose on this list, and in discussions of astrology in general, is to
> get the point across that it is *not* astrology that we need to investigate.
>
> Hmmm...see below.
>
> We know what astrology is: it is a construct that allows us to order
> certain physical information with the intent of applying meaning and
> significance thereto. That is all it is and all it ever has been.

Not so fast! I suspect that no two astrologers use the same subset of
astrological methods or axioms. We cannot even agree on what astrology
is all about. In 1973 I attended a lecture in San Francisco at which M.
Gauquelin stated as emphatically as could be stated, that his work did
not confirm astrology. To me, at the time, and to this day, I am not
sure exactly what he meant. His "Mars Effect" is plainly stated in
Ptolemy's Tetrabiblos so should be considered an axiom of traditional
astrology, I should think, that has been confirmed (N.B. NOT "proven!").

The last time I had any contact with Dale Huckeby he was almost as
adamant that the MC was less valid as an abstract point than the
nonagesimal. We should be capable of settling such issues by
statistical methods.

> What we need to investigate is the phenomenon that this construct is
> intended to mirror, to model, to reflect. Until we can understand something
> of that phenomenon, we have little or no real hope of understanding the
> construct we have developed to make use of it.
>

>
> In general, statistical
> studies are able to show where direct investigation may be useful; in
> specific, statistical studies can serve to confirm or refute hypotheses,
> about the nature of the item of interest.
>
> There are other ways to do statistics, such as the approach used in psychometrics; and there
> are also other methods of research. The problem is (I think) that the hypothesis testing
> approach is only useful when one has some kind of established foundation (of what Dale calls "matters of fact") upon which to formulate viable theories which can then be tested.
> Otherwise, one is trying to find the needle in the haystack before one has even found the
> haystack !
.......
> course others will probably not find what they are not prepared to find.

Always a good thing, too!

> So far as I have been able to discover, no studies of a statistical nature
> have been done that were not so filled with assumptions and suppositions
> that they weren't inherently either invalid or meaningless even in concept,
> much less execution.
>
> I agree

But I do not. I believe the above statement is overbroad to the point
of being meaningless. Please be more specific: ALL statistical
investigations, non-astrological included, are full of inherent
assumptions. Not just about Gaussian distributions, but independence,
countability, continuity and probably other things too basic to bring to
mind. There is no perfect statistical method. All are approximations;
but there is robustness, a valuable trait that needs more explicit
attention.

> I have elsewhere suggested a fundamental theorem of astrology that has been
> seen as radical and so somewhat less than well accepted. I state it here:
>
> ***There exists a mechanism by which certain terrestrial phenomena are made
> subject to influence by certain celestial configurations.***

I think it is a mistake to put your conclusion in your fundamental
theorem. I would rephrase this into 2 parts:

1. Terrestrial phenomena show a more-or-less consistent correlation
with certain celestial configurations.
2. There may exist an unknown mechanism that lies behind this
correlation, that can be studied phenomenologically at present, and
possibly directly at some time in the future.

This is just off the top of my head, but it is broad enough so that the
prevailing Ptolemy-Keplerian version and also Jyotish are subsumed. (I
am not by any means an advocate of Jyotish).

Mark A. Melton
--
FIRST LAW OF PREDICTION: Hindsight is an exact science

Your claim is that
astrology is simply a subjective phenomenon, requiring human
intervention,
or have I misread you?

What phenomenon makes more sense? All that is apparent is the human
experience. We can only study, communicate, and so on and so on at the
highest (at best) human levels, can we not? We might agree that there
is more out there in existence that is beyond our senses and abilities
to assimilate the logic and/or validation thereof, but for now, I think
we really only have, at best, the best of what human beings have seen
and done, with respect to the observations and opinions necessary to
move this discussion forward. Human intervention, as I gather you have
referenced it, is, and begins with, observation. In my mind, that one
word, observation, includes all kinds of activity, including study and
dialogue. Yes, I think astrology is a phenom that requires human
intervention.

To accept that it, astrology, exists outside the human experience, would
require a belief system that assumes possibly as much as
everything...Hmm.

Is it not possible that a set of rules or laws or formula or whatever
you like to call them exist and function at a level that correlates to
the conscious awareness of the observer, and that the/an awareness
thereof can or may manifest itself as an acknowledgment of the kind of
observations associated with those of astrology?

I suppose then, I think this subject is a science or an area of study
that exists only because of human intervention.

Astrology as it is real, is not known and practiced by the group.
Here and there, one may find individuals who know more than the group.
They are most of them research Astrologers, who have not been able to
influence the group mind as they should. Though few of them have made
an effort to do so. Even some of them have considered the group mind, not
ready to understand. Because of possible misuse of accurate knowledge,
given out to early. The real Zodiac is almost tangible, yet not recognized.

The first illusion that we must get rid of, is the illusion of the Ecliptic.

By this, I mean that there is a real difference between the idea of the
solar ecliptic path and the idea of the Zodiac. In the old days these two
different ideas were presented as one, for the sake of simplicity.
The idea of the solar ecliptic path was a Stone Age method to introduce
the idea of the Zodiac.

The Zodiac is an etheric magnetic and radiating force field within the planet,
and surrounding the planet. The Zodiac is in no way affected by the
imaginary solar ecliptic path, or the Arctic Circles, or the rising Sun, or
the position of the Sun in high latitudes. Thus the quadrant House systems
are basically wrong.

The Equal House system that is based on the solar ecliptic path is also
a mistake.